Breaking the Silence by Cristen Gleeson
“Honestly, for me, I never thought I would have the strength to leave. I thought I was trapped.” This a story that is much too
Chilliwack Office
Mailing:
PO Box 390
Chilliwack, BC V2P 6K2
Deliveries:
9259 Main Street
Chilliwack, BC V2P 4M8
Abbotsford Office
200 – 2955 Gladwin Rd,
Abbotsford BC V2T 5T4
(604) 852-3646
If you would like to see articles on any particular area of law, or specific topic, please contact us.
“Honestly, for me, I never thought I would have the strength to leave. I thought I was trapped.” This a story that is much too
When it comes to getting married, or living in a long-term common-law relationship in the Fraser Valley, one of the most important – and most contentious – issues that a couple can face is a marriage agreement, commonly known as a prenuptial agreement. It is particularly important where one party is bringing significant assets into the relationship, often in second marriages. While discussing and forming this type of agreement can cause tension in a relationship, it is a realistic and practical step to take to prevent family law problems later on. Not every relationship goes on the way it was planned or intended. Separation and divorce sadly are distinct possibilities for many couples – and while the ending of your relationship may leave you heartbroken, a prenuptial agreement may prevent it from also leaving you broke.
Bill 16 has recently been introduced into the Provincial Legislature which proposes the introduction of the new Family Law Act. One of the dominant features of the new bill is how it changes the “best interests of the child” test in parenting decisions from the paramount consideration to the only consideration. The new Family Law Act created by the Bill could be in force as early as the Fall of 2012. In future entries we will be discussing how this new Act affects the law in British Columbia, and how it affects your family. Below we discuss a recent family law case which illustrates the confusion that can arise in the family law context as a result of a lack of specificity in drafting a court order.
In Jarman v. Jarman, 2011 BCSC 1155, the Claimant was the former wife of the Respondent who was a retired Air Canada Pilot. The Respondent had an interest in two pension plans with Air Canada: the Air Canada Pension Plan for Pilots, and a Supplemental Retirement Plan (the “SRP”). Air Canada had a policy that no distribution would be made directly from the SRP and no direct settlement would be possible from the SRP.
The Rules of Court allow for the service upon the opposing party of a formal offer to settle. If the party making the formal offer to settle receives a result at trial that is equal to or more successful than the formal offer, the offering party may receive his or her costs and may even argue for double costs following the trial result.
Dubreuil v. Poloway, 2010 B.C.C.A. 297. In this case following a trial in 2001, the father was found to have a Guideline income for child support of $22,000 per year. The father was ordered to pay monthly child support in the amount of $328 per month with respect to the parties’ twin children and to pay the mother 40% of the daycare expenses. The arrears of child support at trial and expenses were fixed at $6,500. The father failed to comply with payment and did not file income tax returns for 2001 through 2007 until June of 2009. The father then applied to have his child support arrears reduced based on his actual income during the past several years. The child support arrears were $16,000. The Chambers Judge found in favour of reducing the arrears to $4,000.
© 2023 Baker Newby Full-Service Lawyers. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Designed by Jelly Digital Marketing & PR